Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



DEBATE THREAD

Started by Bruce_TPU, January 19, 2008, 11:07:48 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.

Omnibus

Quote from: hansvonlieven on January 31, 2008, 09:18:14 AM
Omnibus,

Have you ever thought how idiotic your idea of "Energy from Nothing" really is?

Logic dictates that if you can extract something from a nothing it was not a nothing to begin with.. But then you were never logical, were you?

Hans von Lieven
With this you're only showing your limited understanding of what energy really is.

utilitarian

I have been trying to follow this, and I sort of see where Omnibus is going, but when I try to get my head around it, it starts to hurt.  Low-Q's explanations make more sense.  But I think I can sum this up:

1.  You will never convince Omnibus he is wrong.  Do not even try.  There is no mathematics or physics argument or physical demonstration that can disprove his theory to his satisfaction.

2.  Omnibus is correct when he says that technically, no physical demonstration of usable excess energy from a SMOT is necessary for him to be correct.

3.  Omnibus ignores the related corollary that while (2) is technically true, without a working demo of a SMOT that allows one to actually withdraw energy (instead of putting it in, via hand), it is impossible to convince anyone else of his point of view, given how revolutionary and counterintuitive it is.

4.  A demo of a SMOT that does not produce usable excess energy is not proof that there cannot be a SMOT that does produce usable excess energy.  The old adage about proving a negative applies here.

5.  Because it is currently impossible to draw energy from a self-sustaining SMOT, the debate will never end so long as Omnibus continues with his view.  (Omnibus's generous use of passive voice in claiming violation of CoE "has been proven beyond all doubt" serves to add fuel to the fire.  It does almost beg for a raised hand up from the "remaining" doubters.)

(ducks in anticipation of rebuke about cluttering the thread with nonsense)

Omnibus

Quote from: utilitarian on January 31, 2008, 01:34:31 PM
I have been trying to follow this, and I sort of see where Omnibus is going, but when I try to get my head around it, it starts to hurt.  Low-Q's explanations make more sense.  But I think I can sum this up:

1.  You will never convince Omnibus he is wrong.  Do not even try.  There is no mathematics or physics argument or physical demonstration that can disprove his theory to his satisfaction.

2.  Omnibus is correct when he says that technically, no physical demonstration of usable excess energy from a SMOT is necessary for him to be correct.

3.  Omnibus ignores the related corollary that while (2) is technically true, without a working demo of a SMOT that allows one to actually withdraw energy (instead of putting it in, via hand), it is impossible to convince anyone else of his point of view, given how revolutionary and counterintuitive it is.

4.  A demo of a SMOT that does not produce usable excess energy is not proof that there cannot be a SMOT that does produce usable excess energy.  The old adage about proving a negative applies here.

5.  Because it is currently impossible to draw energy from a self-sustaining SMOT, the debate will never end so long as Omnibus continues with his view.

(ducks in anticipation of rebuke about cluttering the thread with nonsense)
All this is untrue. Also, to join the choir of other incompetent amateurs here isn't something one can be proud of.

utilitarian

Quote from: Omnibus on January 31, 2008, 01:44:18 PM
All this is untrue. Also, to join the choir of other incompetent amateurs here isn't something one can be proud of.

I am not proud, but come on, at least 2 and 4 you cannot argue with.

hansvonlieven

Even if someone does build a self sustaining closed system SMOT this is still no proof that CoE has been violated. The most someone could say is that there is an energy input from an unknown source.

Until we know ALL forms of energy that exist in the universe no violation of CoE can be proven.

We are a long way from recognising and measuring all forms of energy that exist. There are still any number of things out there in this immensity that surrounds us that we have no knowledge of.

Hans von Lieven
When all is said and done, more is said than done.     Groucho Marx